The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was YA RLY delete. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic list, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability of O'Reilly Media does not imply notability for a list of their product line; this list is best left to oreilly.com's catalog page. List of O'Reilly books currently contains 12 bluelinks and 769 redlinks, and all working links are easily available through Category:O'Reilly books.

I discovered this red-link farm while researching the similar AfD/List of ...For Dummies books. - Rynne 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as AfD nominator. - Rynne 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. RLF. The "Books" section in O'Reilly Media can be expanded, if necessary. PJM 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is not an indescriminate collection of information. It's an index to some books from a popular publishing company. Some more of these books will surely be created in the future, so why trash this list now?. --Snargle 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All new articles can be added to Category:O'Reilly books, where they'll be much easier to find than by searching through the 780+ lines of this list. - Rynne 22:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One reason for lists to exist is to point out missing articles. Categories only list existing articles. --Snargle 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a reminder of what articles are not in Wikipedia. - Rynne 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Such a list confers special status on O'Reilly books, which is POV. Slowmover 21:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special status? I don't think so. --Snargle 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful list. Alot of those redlinks are notable books that could be expanded and this is a notable list. If the length is an issue, perhaps it can be broken up? ---J.Smith 22:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly the largest collection of redlinks ever seen on AfD. Redundant per category and listcruft of the first water. Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would anyone miss this if it were gone? Hardly anything links to it, hardly anyone edits it ... this isn't a way of saying "delete", I'm genuinely curious re. whether this actually gets used. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit that i'm biased, being the creator and all, but I'm pretty sure that lists of books organized by publisher deserve a place on wikipedia. This type of list can be considered complete, easy to maintain, and for people researching O'Reilly books for whatever reason, it can be useful. Also, this list pointed to a couple uncategorized books. --Snargle 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per JzG. --kingboyk 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the publisher maintains this list better than we can; we should just link to them. FreplySpang (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. How is the list easily maintainable? Is someone going to update it every time O'Reilly releases a new book? How can we guarantee that? · rodii · 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. Arbusto 00:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per snargle. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no reason for signalling which O'Reilly books do not have articles. Dlyons493 Talk 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG. --Terence Ong 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not mirror of O'Reilly's website. The time spent on the list would be better to devote on articles about most important books about SW. For example no book by W. Richard Stevens is covered although they are classic. Pavel Vozenilek 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redlink farm. A category is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a mirror of O'Reilly's website. Wikipedia is not a reminder of what articles are not in Wikipedia. Listcruft is suboptimal. Stifle 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As much as I love O'Reilly Media, this list is useless as a category will do. Also, red color hurts on Wikipedia, now doesn't it? ;-) --Misza13 ^{T C} 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.